Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Lahyani


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships. I can see where Mayumashu is coming from in the argument that tennis umpires should be assumed notable in a similar way that they are for baseball and referees are for (association) football; however, the guidelines at WP:NSPORT are decided by wide community consensus and I don't think we can easily go against that, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. No-one has argued that the subject passes WP:BASIC or WP:GNG, and so the only conclusion that I can come to is that he is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. (The other "keep" voters are variations on WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:ITSIMPORTANT.) After this, a redirect seems the best choice of close for this AfD, but I don't see a clear consensus as to which article this page should redirect to. Further discussion would best be undertaken at WP:RFD. My choice of redirecting to the match article is purely because when I looked at the page's history that was the first place it was redirected to. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 13:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Mohamed Lahyani

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This needs to be redirected as per tennis project discussions here and here, and recent Mohamed Lahyani reverts. It should be redirected to the article List of tennis umpires as we do with other umpires. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I would suggest that Redirects for discussion would be a better home for this. Or a WP:RFC or WP:3O. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're trying to bully your way around with an AfD? Without addressing my concerns on the talk page? I'll copy that content here:"This article went from an article to a redirect back to a (worse than before) article, and now we're back at redirect. It had been redirect to the Isner-Mahut I, and that was changed to List of tennis umpires. I have reverted that because I don't like it. First of all, Lahyani does seem to be notable for just this one thing, and redirecting him to the one thing is appropriate; if his name ever comes up, it's likely to be in the context of that match. Second, that list is not a very good article: it's the kind of list we shouldn't have since it lists names, not article. That such umpires with such badges would be notable remains to be seen, and as long as they're not notable it's not in agreement with our guidelines and practice to list them. In other words, I disagree with the very existence of the list in the form in which it is cast. Either you have a list of notables or likely notables, or you don't have a list at all." I stand by that. As to the comments in your nomination--those two brief discussions were hardly community-wide, and if they involved a significant number of Tennis editors then it's a pretty small project. The question was asked what the broader community might think and that's a good idea; I hope we get some more involvement. I note, for instance, that Articles for deletion/Mariana Alves really wasn't anything of a discussion at all. But besides all that, to reiterate what I said on that talk page: this umpire is mostly significant for one particular match, and your List of tennis umpires is the kind of list that we really shouldn't have--WP:CSC seems to support that. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I previously closed this as more appropriate for an RFD, but it was pointed out on my talk page that someone has recently opined that this should actually remain an article, so this is more than just a discussion on what the target of a redirect should be. Technically no one is arguing for actual deletion of the page, but it's been pointed out to me by an AFD regular that discussions about article vs redirect #1 vs redirect #2 are not uncommon at AFD, and this doesn't seem an unreasonable place to have that discussion. So, I've re-opened the discussion. I'll let people that have already commented here know, and also I'm going to canvas the one person who has said it should remain an article to make sure that side is heard. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: - FWIW - I had originally redirected this to the List of tennis umpires because the list was discussed and agreed to at Tennis project when it was created by another editor. Umpire articles had been put up for deletion (some I believe before the list was created) and were either deleted or redirected to the list. I later noticed two other umpire articles that had been missed, and simply redirected them to the umpire list; as all others had been successful I assumed we'd keep things consistent. This was the first week of August. This past week a different editor brought back the full article which I then reverted back to the redirect to the umpires list. He reverted back to a full article at which time I was going to put it up for AFD to get it deleted or preferably redirected to the Umpire list. Before I could do the dirty details another editor reverted the full article but redirected it to a famous tennis match. I still put it up for afd as I thought this was the best place to resolve the issue, and here we are. My preference is to redirect it to the list of gold badge umpires. I feel that 99% of readers are not going to search for this relatively unknown umpire's name but rather see her listed at that famous tennis match's article, click and have it lead to a list of gold badge umpires. A list we can expand on by writing a sentence or two about each umpire if they ever get even a smidgen of press. And if perchance they get a whole bunch of press, mutiple times, then an article might be appropriate for that particular gold badge umpire. I'm not saying that a redirect to the the Isner match is bad, i just feel that the gold badge list is better. And I'm not saying that complete deletion is bad, I just think that redirecting to the umpire list is much better. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. A gold badge ITF chair umpire, the highest tier of umpire for the sport, the equivalent of a FIFA referee, MLB umpire, etc., all of whom pass WP:Notability (sports).  WP:NTENNIS needs to be editted to mention chair umpires. Mayumashu (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Just because they are the highest tier of something doesn't make them notable. Certain Baseball umpires are talked about on the tv all the time. When we look at wikipedia and the list of Snooker refs or NFL refs we see mostly blanks. And just because they have articles doesn't mean they should have articles. The NFL and snooker projects might be way to lax in what they think is notable while if wikipedia at large looked at it they might delete 90% of the articles. In tennis the umps are pretty much a tiny blip on the radar who only get any press at all if there is a single controversy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * According to WP:NBASEBALL any umpire who has umpired a MLB game is notable, regardless of much the ump in question may or may not be talked about on tv, and the same goes for football referees - see WP:NSOCCER.  (Even if you want to measure notability by media exposure and ignore WP:NSPORTS, Lahyani is frequently mentioned on TV by announcers, when he is in the chair.  And these mentions are very rarely because of he umped the Isner-Mahut match.  He likes the spotlight as we know and umpires many of the top of the top matches.  But this should all be irrelevent, given he's one of only a dozen or so top tier umps, gold-badged.)  Mayumashu (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as redirect to the match--my earlier comments are copied above; this is just to make matters clear. This should not be an article (it has no potential), it's a valid redirect (useful search term), and it should only have one goal, the match. List of tennis umpires is not a valid target or a useful article, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * He is frequently seen on TV and named by announcers, not because he umped Isner-Mahut, but because he umpires a lot of the biggest matches and that he likes the spotlight, tends to smile when the camera is on him, and gets added exposure and mention because of this. He is very much a valid subject for a WP article.  But this is only a secondary reason why.  All gold-badge umpires should be WP notable as all MLB umpires, FIFA top tier referees, etc. are. Mayumashu (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 06:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep! And add info to the article, seems too short.Naki (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wily D 08:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - definitely, I feel he's an important figure in the current tour. Asmazif (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2012 (GMT)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.